
The most common question regarding accessibility is, “How bad is a given site, and what’s it going to take to fix it?” Most people would like to get at least a ballpark answer without spending $1,000. This session will cover how we use a quick audit to answer these common questions and move forward on solving accessibility issues.
- How accessible or inaccessible is a given website?
- How do you determine your major pain points?
- How do you identify which parts of your site are causing the most accessibility issues?
- How do you use this information to choose what direction to take in remediating the site?
Thanks to Our Sponsors
IvyCat helps clients and agencies create, market, and maintain high-performing WordPress websites and web apps that are fast, easy to use, accessible, and get results. Their website care plans, search engine optimization, and accessibility services help clients grow and succeed without the stress and headaches of doing it alone.
Watch the Recording
Read the Transcript
Links Mentioned
- Webinar Chat
- The Baltimore WordPress Group
- Screen Reader Ropes Course
- Should you use an accessibility overlay?
- Overlay Fact Sheet
- European Disability Forum
- UsableNet Reports
- Building an Accessible Theme for Accessible First Sites
About the Meetup
Article continued below.
Stay on top of web accessibility news and best practices.
Join our email list to get notified of changes to website accessibility laws, WordPress accessibility resources, and accessibility webinar invitations in your inbox.
Summarized Session Information
In this session, Gen Herres covers the essentials of quick accessibility audits, providing a detailed framework for identifying and addressing accessibility issues on websites. The session explores various facets of accessibility auditing, including the purpose, timing, execution, and interpretation of results, leading to effective remediation strategies.
Purpose of quick audits: quick audits are essential preliminary steps for identifying accessibility issues. They range from automated tools like Deque’s axe product, which quickly highlights basic accessibility faults, to comprehensive manual audits that delve deeply into website compliance with WCAG 2.2 criteria.
When to do them: the session outlines optimal moments for conducting quick audits, such as when taking on new clients, during redesigns, or in response to accessibility inquiries. These audits provide crucial insights that help maintain compliance and enhance user experience without extensive time investment.
Who can do them: effective quick audits require individuals equipped with specific skills, including proficiency in using screen readers, understanding of accessible markup, and the ability to navigate and inspect websites thoroughly.
How to do them: the audit process involves using various tools and techniques, including multiple browsers and accessibility testing tools like WAVE, to ensure comprehensive coverage of potential accessibility issues.
Quick audit practical example: a live demonstration of a quick audit on the E-ZPass New York website illustrates the step-by-step process of checking for accessibility statements, alt text on images, keyboard navigability, and other key accessibility features.
Understanding results: the session discusses how to analyze the results from a quick audit, emphasizing the importance of identifying common issues and determining their sources, which could range from content errors to theme-related problems.
What to do next: based on the audit findings, immediate actions might include simple fixes like adjusting theme settings or more complex changes such as overhauling content management processes. The session also encourages ongoing advocacy for accessibility, urging participants to communicate with plugin and theme developers about accessibility shortcomings.
Gen Herres provided valuable insights and practical steps for anyone looking to enhance the accessibility of their websites, ensuring they are inclusive and compliant with current standards.
Session Outline
- Purpose of quick audits
- When to do them
- Who can do them
- How to do them
- Quick audit practical example
- Understanding results
- What to do next
Purpose of quick audits
Quick audits, particularly those that are automated, serve as an essential preliminary step in identifying accessibility issues on websites. Many tools available online facilitate these audits, with Deque’s axe product being one of the most prominent examples. This tool, renowned for its robustness and widespread use, also underpins Google Lighthouse, highlighting its reliability and industry acceptance.
Instant automated: easy, fast, cheap, low coverage
Instant automated audits are lauded for their ease of use, speed, and cost-effectiveness. These audits require minimal training and are particularly adept at performing specific checks. For instance, they can efficiently verify if a web page has specified a language and conduct contrast testing to assess visual accessibility.
The axe product, a popular tool in this category, is notably proficient, identifying approximately 83% of detectable accessibility errors. It is effective in detecting the presence of bypass blocks and whether alt text is present for images, though it cannot assess the appropriateness of the alt text provided. Additionally, it successfully identifies over half, specifically 54%, of the errors related to name, role, and value attributes.
However, instant automated audits have significant limitations. They cover only about 25% of the WCAG 2.2 criteria, and even within this subset, their testing is partial and incomplete.
According to studies conducted by Deque across thousands of websites, no single WCAG criterion can be fully tested by these automated tools alone. Moreover, most accessibility-related lawsuits stem from issues identified through manual user testing, often involving legally blind individuals using screen readers. It’s crucial to note that legal blindness varies significantly in its impact; many legally blind individuals can still see the screen well enough to notice when content is missing, thanks to adaptations such as increased text size and screen magnification. This highlights a critical gap in automated testing, which fails to capture the nuanced user experience of individuals with visual impairments.
Comprehensive manual: slow, expensive, good
In contrast to instant automated audits, comprehensive manual audits represent a more in-depth approach to assessing website accessibility. These audits are characteristically slow and expensive but are highly effective in their coverage and accuracy. Conducted by experienced testers, often requiring the collaboration of multiple individuals, manual audits can test against all WCAG 2.2 criteria comprehensively. This thoroughness ensures that every aspect of the criteria is examined, providing a complete assessment of a website’s accessibility.
However, the drawbacks of comprehensive manual audits are notable. These audits can take weeks to complete and may cost thousands of dollars. Additionally, they often result in extensive reports that may include a large number of repeated issues. This can be cumbersome for organizations that need a quick assessment to determine the general accessibility level of their website—whether it meets basic standards or is significantly lacking.
The time and financial investment required for comprehensive manual audits makes them less feasible for routine or preliminary evaluations, though their depth and precision are unmatched.
The middle ground: quick accessibility audits
Quick accessibility audits serve as a practical middle ground between instant automated audits and comprehensive manual audits. These audits typically take a few hours for those new to the process or when covering multiple pages, although experienced auditors can complete them in under 20 minutes. However, documenting the findings generally takes twice as long as the audit itself. Quick audits require only one trained individual, keeping costs manageable and making it feasible to include audit expenses in client proposals without causing undue concern.
Quick audits effectively identify major accessibility issues that need remediation and provide a good estimate of the overall scope of work required. This type of audit is particularly useful for gauging the extent of necessary changes to enhance a website’s accessibility.
In terms of scoping, quick audits help pinpoint the origin of accessibility errors, particularly in WordPress environments, identifying whether they stem from themes, plugins, add-ons, or content. They assess whether issues are minor fixes or require significant changes and whether these issues completely block access to the website or merely make navigation unpleasant. This distinction is crucial for prioritizing fixes, determining whether an error is critical or a major concern, and understanding the impact on user experience.
When to do quick accessibility audits
Quick accessibility audits are pivotal for numerous situations in web development and accessibility compliance. These audits allow you to assess the accessibility status of a website rapidly and are particularly beneficial in several scenarios:
- Taking on a new client with an existing website: this is an optimal time for a quick audit. Not only does this help identify existing issues for which you are not responsible, but it also enables you to comprehensively assess various aspects such as accessibility, security, and privacy. This thorough evaluation demonstrates your commitment to the client’s interests and lays the groundwork for necessary improvements.
- During discussions of a redesign: a quick audit can benchmark the current accessibility status of a website and even compare it against competitors. This process underscores the importance of accessibility for user interaction and conversion, and it provides a solid foundation for client discussions about enhancements, such as ensuring readability under different conditions like bright sunlight and sunglasses.
- Taking a client out of “this website they love”: clients often fall in love with aesthetically pleasing websites without considering usability on different devices or in various environments. Quick audits can reveal overlooked issues, such as misleading designs where headings look like hyperlinks but aren’t, which can frustrate users and lead to a poor experience.
- Early in the build process: conducting a quick audit after the initial setup and a few pages have been designed helps ensure the build is on the right track. Making adjustments early on rather than after extensive development is more cost-effective and less labor-intensive.
- Responding to accessibility inquiries or demand letters: if a client receives an accessibility inquiry or demand letter, particularly related to ADA Title II compliance, it motivates immediate action. Quick audits at this stage can identify major compliance gaps and help plan for necessary adjustments to meet legal standards by set deadlines.
These scenarios illustrate the strategic importance of quick audits in managing web accessibility effectively. By conducting these audits, you can proactively address potential issues, guide clients towards more accessible designs, and ensure compliance with accessibility standards, ultimately protecting your clients from potential legal repercussions.
Who can do quick accessibility audits?
Quick accessibility audits are essential for assessing web accessibility, but they require specific skills and attributes in the individuals performing them. Here’s an outline of the key qualifications and traits needed for effective quick auditing:
- Visual acuity: auditors must have good corrected vision to assess the visual aspects of a website accurately. This includes verifying the presence and appropriateness of alt text for images, detecting issues with keyboard focus, and evaluating the effectiveness of zoom functions. Good vision is also necessary to ensure that headings, page titles, and other visual elements are appropriately configured.
- Absence of color, sensory, or reading impairments: since quick audits often involve evaluating color contrast and navigating sites that could potentially trigger sensory responses, it is crucial that auditors do not have color vision deficiencies or sensory issues that could affect their performance or well-being.
- Proficiency with standard input devices: auditors should be capable of using standard input devices like a mouse or trackpad. This skill is necessary to test hover and focus states and to differentiate between keyboard and mouse navigation, ensuring that all interactive elements are accessible through both methods.
- Basic screen reader skills: while not requiring advanced skills, auditors must be competent in using screen readers. This ability is vital because screen reader compatibility is a common issue cited in accessibility lawsuits. Basic proficiency ensures that auditors can effectively evaluate how accessible a website is for users who rely on these tools.
- Language fluency: being fluent in the language of the website is essential. This proficiency allows auditors to navigate the site effectively, understand multimedia transcripts and captions, and ensure that textual content is accessible and appropriate.
- Knowledge of accessible markup and code inspection: auditors need to be familiar with accessible web design practices and how to inspect code for accessibility issues. This knowledge enables them to identify problematic elements within the website’s codebase and provide actionable insights for developers and content creators.
These qualifications ensure that the auditor can conduct a thorough and effective quick audit, addressing all potential accessibility issues and ensuring that the website meets the required standards to avoid compliance risks and enhance user experience.
How to do a quick accessibility audit?
To begin conducting a quick audit, you should seek educational resources offering detailed guidance. Gen has developed a series of instructional videos available on YouTube, which breaks down the steps in a quick audit into detailed segments. These videos are an excellent starting point for anyone new to accessibility audits, providing foundational knowledge and updates on new auditing techniques as they develop.
Tools used
An effective quick audit requires using multiple browsers to identify varying issues that may not be apparent across all platforms. Chrome is recommended as the primary browser due to its widespread use and general reliability. However, Firefox is also crucial for its stringent handling of CSS and its capabilities in text zoom testing, which can reveal accessibility issues that Chrome might not. Testing across different browsers ensures a comprehensive review of a website’s accessibility features.
Screen readers are indispensable tools in accessibility testing. Commonly used screen readers include NVDA for PCs and VoiceOver for Macs. These tools simulate the user experience of visually impaired users, allowing auditors to identify navigational and informational barriers that are not perceivable without such technology. Proficiency in using these screen readers is essential for conducting thorough accessibility evaluations.
Code inspection is a critical component of the quick audit process. Auditors must be proficient in reading and understanding HTML and CSS to identify semantic inaccuracies, improper use of ARIA roles, and other technical issues. This step involves delving into the website’s underlying code to diagnose problems that affect its accessibility to users with disabilities.
Checklist
To ensure all aspects of accessibility are covered during an audit, you should use a structured checklist. Gen recommends using a specific checklist tool that helps streamline the auditing process by providing a clear framework for review. This tool assists in maintaining a systematic approach, ensuring no critical elements are overlooked.
Quick accessibility audit practical example
In this live demonstration of a quick audit, Gen audits the E-ZPass New York website, an official site for the New York State government, which must comply with ADA Title II. The site is notably problematic, making it an ideal candidate for this exercise. Gen’s goal is to navigate and evaluate the site against a checklist that includes key accessibility features.
Accessibility statement
The first checkpoint in the audit is the presence of an accessibility statement. This statement is crucial as it outlines the website’s commitment to making its digital content accessible to all users, including those with disabilities.
Gen begins by searching for the word “accessibility” using the browser’s search function but finds no results on the page.
Gen also checks the website’s footer, which is a common location for these statements, but finds nothing there either. Due to the absence of an accessibility statement, she marks this item as “does not support” with the issue source noted as content—specifically, the missing content on the website.

Cookie and privacy policies
Next, Gen examines the site for cookie and privacy policies. Gen notes the absence of a cookie banner, which could be a compliance issue in jurisdictions that require websites to inform users about cookie usage. However, the site does have a privacy policy, which she accesses using keyboard navigation to ensure it is accessible via keyboard alone—a crucial check for users who rely on keyboards rather than a mouse.
Gen does not conduct a thorough legal analysis in reviewing the privacy policy but checks for an updated date and contact information, both common requirements under various privacy laws. She finds some contact information but notes the lack of an email address or any electronic contact method, which she marks as “partially supports.” The absence of an email address in the contact information could limit the ways in which users can reach out for assistance or inquiries, especially for those who prefer or require digital communication methods.

Proper alt text on images
Gen begins by assessing the alt text for images on the homepage. Using the WAVE browser extension, she inspects the images to ensure they are properly described for users relying on screen readers.
She finds that several images, including one containing significant text content, lack any alt text—a clear accessibility failure. Some images that serve as links also lack alt text, making navigation and understanding content difficult for visually impaired users. She marks this test as “partially supports” due to mixed results, noting that the issues are related to content.

Proper labels on form inputs
Next, Gen evaluates the website’s forms to check if input fields are properly labeled, which is crucial for users to understand what information is required. Upon inspection, she discovers that a label for an input field lacks the programmatic markup needed to link it explicitly to its corresponding input, a setup that should typically include ‘for’ and ‘id’ attributes linking labels and inputs.
Additionally, she notices an image used to denote required fields that fails to provide alternative text or an appropriate title attribute, further hindering accessibility. This form is marked as “failing” due to these significant accessibility barriers.

Proper links and link states
Gen checks the visual clarity and functionality of links, particularly whether links can be distinguished from non-link text and if they display a hover state. She notes that some images used as links lack a hover state, and in several cases, headings and links are visually indistinguishable. This lack of differentiation can confuse users about which elements are interactive.
Although the link states are generally acceptable, the hover states and visual differentiation issues lead her to mark this aspect as “partially supports.” She attributes the problems to content and theme, indicating that the website’s design and content management need improvement.

Clear keyboard focus state
Gen notes that while some links in the banner lack a hover state, they do exhibit a focus state when selected. However, the contrast of this focus state is low, making it difficult to discern, which could hinder the navigation experience for users with visual impairments.
As she navigates, the focus jumps unpredictably from the header to the footer and back, sometimes bypassing the main content. This erratic focus order indicates a failure to ensure a logical and sequential navigation path, significantly affecting the site’s usability for keyboard-dependent users.

Skip link for keyboard users
Next, Gen checks for a skip link—an essential feature that allows users to bypass repetitive navigation links and directly access the main content. Unfortunately, the first element she encounters via the keyboard is the home link, indicating the absence of a skip link. This oversight is marked as a failure, as it forces keyboard users to tab through every navigation link before reaching the main content, which can be tedious and inefficient.

Navigable menu and website for keyword users
Gen assesses the site’s menu’s navigability for keyboard users. While the menu is navigable on a desktop setting, the website’s lack of responsiveness on mobile devices presents significant challenges.
The site does not adjust well to different screen sizes, leading to excessive horizontal scrolling that complicates navigation for users, particularly those with low vision who may rely on zoom functions.
Although desktop navigation is adequate, the poor mobile experience leads Gen to rate this aspect as only partially supportive, attributing the issue largely to the website’s theme, which should ideally handle responsiveness more effectively.

Text sizing with zoom
Gen uses Firefox to test the website’s text sizing when zoomed, a feature crucial for users who need larger text to read comfortably. In Firefox, she enables “zoom text only” to focus solely on text scalability. Immediately, she noticed that the default text size on the website was very small. After zooming the text to 200%, issues become apparent in the header where the fixed height does not accommodate the enlarged text, causing overlap and some text to run off the screen. However, the body and footer content scale appropriately without issues.
Gen concludes that the website partially supports text resizing, with the main problems localized to the header attributable to the site’s theme.

Page titles and headings
Next, Gen assesses the website’s page titles and headings, which are fundamental for navigation and understanding the structure of the content. The page title “E-ZPass New York” is deemed appropriate. However, using the WAVE tool, Gen discovers that the website lacks any headings, a significant oversight that impacts the semantic structure and navigability of the site.
This absence is marked as a content-based failure, highlighting a critical area for improvement to meet accessibility standards.

Color contrast for text
Gen examines the color contrast of the text using the WAVE tool, which is essential for readability, especially for users with visual impairments. The tool identifies two contrast errors: red text on a yellow background and a date displayed on a dark gray background. While the latter initially appears to fail, a closer inspection reveals that the dark gray and light gray combination actually passes contrast standards. However, the red text on a yellow background, though not failing by a large margin, does not meet the required contrast ratio.
Gen marks this test as partially supportive, noting these issues as content-related.

No autoplay, continuous animations, or visually disorienting content
Gen begins by checking for any autoplay features, continuous animations, or content that could be visually disorienting or disruptive, especially to users with vestibular disorders.
She confirms that the website does not contain any elements that autoplay or move independently, which could potentially cause discomfort or disorientation.
Given this, she marks this criterion as “supports,” indicating that the website adheres to best practices for motion and animation from an accessibility perspective.

Closed captions and transcripts
Next, Gen examines the website for the presence of media that would require closed captions or transcripts to make audio and video content accessible. She finds no media content on the page, which renders this criterion non-applicable.
Gen explains her rationale for marking the absence of autoplay and animations as “supports” versus closed captions and transcripts as “not applicable.” The distinction lies in being able to positively confirm the absence of auto-playing or animated content, whereas the need for captions and transcripts does not arise without media content.

Quick screen reader test
Finally, Gen notes some issues that affect the screen reader’s effectiveness, which suggests that both the content and the underlying theme of the website contribute to these challenges.
She marks this test as “partially supports,” indicating that while the website may be navigable with a screen reader to some extent, there are significant areas for improvement to ensure full accessibility.

Quick accessibility audit report
After exhausting all the quick audit accessibility criteria, this tool offers the option to generate the report. You get a little summary that tells you one criterion passed, eight partially failed, four flat-out failed, and one was not applicable. Then, it goes into the details.
Understanding the results
What does one page tell us?
Analyzing just one page of a website can provide significant insights into the broader issues that may exist across the entire site. It allows auditors to examine various components such as the website header, footer, stylesheet, and overall theme. Additionally, it sheds light on content issues—how content is being added, whether it’s done correctly or not, and any problems related to website add-ons. This holistic view helps identify consistent problems and areas requiring focused attention.
Look at conformance level of issue
In assessing the conformance level of each issue identified during the audit, special attention is given to items ranked as “partially supports” or “does not support.” These categories highlight areas where the website fails to meet accessibility standards and thus requires immediate action.
Ideally, by the end of an audit, no items should be left untested; if any are found, it indicates a need to revisit those areas. Items marked as “supports” signify compliance with accessibility standards and do not require further action, similar to items deemed “not applicable.”
Look for common issue sources
Once the audit is complete, it’s important to analyze the sources of the issues. Identifying whether multiple problems stem from a single source can be particularly revealing. For example, if several issues are attributed to the website’s theme, it might be necessary to reconsider whether to continue using that theme or replace it. If content is frequently identified as a source of issues, it suggests that the process for adding content needs to be revised to ensure it is done accessibly.
Instead of attempting to remediate all issues at once, the best approach is to refine the content creation and management processes first. This proactive strategy helps prevent future issues while planning the remediation of existing ones. Moreover, issues with website add-ons, like forms, might indicate that the tool is misconfigured or needs replacement, pointing to a need for technical adjustments or new solutions.
What to do next
Based on results decide what to do
Based on the audit results, certain components might need immediate action. For instance, problematic forms can be replaced individually without major disruption, often directly on the live site. Similarly, simple adjustments in theme settings, such as altering the default color for links, can resolve certain issues quickly and easily. These types of changes are preferable as they are straightforward and do not require extensive effort or staging.
What change needs to be made?
Identifying the necessary changes involves a thorough review of the audit findings. This may include modifying the way content is added to the site, which often necessitates training for the team responsible for content management.
For more complex issues, such as customizations that have introduced accessibility barriers, consultation with a developer may be required. An example can be adjusting the configuration of contact forms and educating users about accessibility best practices, such as the proper use of form fields and the avoidance of placeholders.
Get straight to work fixing things
Once the required changes are identified, starting remediation immediately is beneficial. Addressing straightforward issues like color contrast can be done quickly without waiting for a comprehensive audit report.
This proactive approach allows for rapid improvements and reduces the time spent on revising repeated issues.
Multiple pages for Gap Assessment
Conducting quick audits on multiple pages helps in creating a comprehensive gap assessment. This involves sampling various pages, such as the homepage, product pages, and checkout processes, especially in e-commerce settings.
This strategy ensures a broad evaluation of the site, leveraging the templated nature of content management systems like WordPress to make widespread improvements efficiently.
Remodel vs. remediate in place
Deciding between a full site remodel and remediating in place depends on the extent of the issues and the website’s structure.
For sites heavily reliant on page builders, switching themes might provide quick accessibility improvements without the need for extensive redevelopment. This can often be done with minimal disruption and without moving to a staging environment.
Be noisy and speak up about accessibility
Finally, it’s important to advocate for accessibility by providing feedback to plugin and theme developers, especially when their products fail to meet accessibility standards. Being vocal about the reasons for not choosing a particular product can influence developers to prioritize accessibility improvements. This advocacy benefits the individual website and contributes to broader advancements in web accessibility standards.